Thursday, February 16, 2017

Ibtihaj Muhammad: Suffering Persecution or Fake Hate?

Hat tip: John

Fake NewsIslam's power has changed western travel, adding billions of dollars and long and often intrusive vetting at airports. On a cross country trip, at O'Hare, I was pulled aside and subject to an intensive search. The delay was about one hour. I answered questions "yes or no" and only stated the time of my departure. My cooperation made it go smoothly. Fake Hate via Islam is very popular today.

Muhammad, a lifelong American citizen, claimed in an interview last week that she was detained “just a few weeks ago” by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. She said she was held for two hours without explanation.

Her remarks on Feb. 7 earned her an entire news cycle, as several journalists ran with reports suggesting, and alleging outright, that the American Olympian had been ensnared in the president’s executive order temporarily barring immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries.

When asked if she knew anyone directly impacted by the travel restrictions, Muhammad responded,

“I personally was held at Customs for two hours just a few weeks ago. I don’t know why. I can’t tell you why it happened to me, but I know that I’m Muslim.

Always note the additional unnecessary wording. Note what is told to us in the negative as an elevation of importance. We expect to hear straight forward sentences of what happened, what was said, and so on. She was "personally" held; there is no other way for her to be held for a security check. It is a routine flagging, and the TSA is looking for weapons. The TSA did not need to tell me what they were looking for. With the rise of Islam, this is now done throughout the western world due to an ideology that is political, social, sexual and religious, which uses violence as a conquest. She said she "can't" tell us why it happened to her. This is to be restricted ("can't") which is immediately 'challenged' in her language by the word "but." What follows "but" is elevated above that which preceded it: "but I know I am a Muslim."Did you notice that she did not say, "I am a Muslim"? In Statement Analysis, she did not tell us that she is a Muslim but told us what she "knows."She has now just created some distance, unnecessarily, from being a Muslim. You may interpret her words, but in analysis, we do not. We believe what one tells us unless they talk us out of it. I believe her when she avoids saying she is a Muslim, reducing it to only what she "knows." Next, she makes a similar statement, without any distancing language:

I have an Arabic name.

And even though I represent Team USA and I have that Olympic hardware, it doesn’t change how you look and how people perceive you.

She frequently poses in Islamic covering with an American flag behind her.

“Unfortunately, I know that people talk about this having a lot to do with these seven countries in particular, but I think the net is cast a little bit wider than we know. And I’m included in that as a Muslim woman who wears a hijab.”

The seven countries known for exporting Islamic terror were named by Barak Obama. Note that she does not say she "knows" the net is "cast a little bit wider", as she goes to the plural pronoun "we": this is a very strong indication that she is influenced by someone else, and an activity outside the airport vetting. This is confirmed by the unnecessary 'addition' of "And I'm included."

She strongly relates to having an Arabic last name, but she does not strongly (linguistically) relate to being Muslim.

This should cause us to ask about her Muslim beliefs here, in context. "As a Muslim woman" is what we classify as "passive voice" (though it is not the same as "passivity") in particular, if the subject has avoided a close connection to being Muslim. This is something reserved for Advanced Analysis.

A Customs official confirmed that she was detained in random vetting; less than one hour. The TSA is also aware of the boarding time and will not cause someone to miss a flight unless they have very strong suspicion of weapons.

Even though this is a plane booking, with dates confirmed verbally, electronically, and on the ticket, Muhammad refused to commit to the date she was detained by Customs. "I don't remember" is the number one deceptive response in courts and we find it in language. The article did not give the quote, but only to say that she would not give a "hard date"...not only do we know our plane ticket dates, but we are to believe she had a memorable experience. If the date was long ago, it could be forgotten, but if it was since the January 27th mandate, the date will be known. This is our 'expected.'

She is an outspoken Trump critic, and that she is extremely displeased with his immigration order.

Leftist media including Motto, the Independent, the Daily Mail, the New York Daily News, the Hill, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN all published outraged articles stating or heavily implying that Muhammad was subjected to this horrific inconvenience as a result of Trump’s travel ban, which was instituted on January 27, 2017.

Is this "fake news" again?

We rely on the language to guide us.

Muhammad elaborates on her ordeal, and here we are given insight into why she used distancing language as to being a Muslim:

“It’s really hard. My human response is to cry because I was so sad and upset and disheartened — and just disappointed. At the same time, I’m one of those people who feels like I have to be strong for those people who may not be able to find that strength.

Here we see the narcissism. She did not say she cried, but it would be her "human response"; which is to be "human." She gives a rebuttal about being human, however:"I'm one of those people...""human response" is now "people", separated by the word "but", which relegates being "human" to the lower side of comparison. She wants us to know her strength is superior to her human side. She is not one of "these", herself, but she is one of "those." This, too, is distancing language. She does not keep herself from crying for herself, or for her religion, but for "people who may not be able to find that strength. " Note "that" strength is distancing language as well. She does not say "for people who may be unable to find the strength..."In a security vetting, it is a passive position. Agents search your person and belongings for items used to harm others. Here we are given insight into why she did not give in to her human side to cry. We know she has a "human" side and some other side, hence, the narcissistic language.

“I feel like I have to speak up for those people whose voices go unheard. It was a really hard two hours, but at the same time, I made it home. I try to remember to be positive and to try to leave all these situations, even if they may be very difficult, with love.

She puts herself in 'messianic' status: she was given a security check by TSA and did not cry for others. How does her not crying, while separated from others, for a security check assist people? This is the language of narcissism. Next: Who are the "people" that she refuses to be human for? We now see why being a "Muslim" produced an instant weakness of distancing language. When we see "I know I didn't shoot him", analysts immediately flag the statement for what he "knows", not what he did. Here, we flag it the same way. With "voices go unheard", I would be very interested in obtaining her childhood background under Islamic males. as a female. There are many Muslims who are not religious and not interested in jihad or coercive conquest; they are Muslims by culture, but not religious. This is similar to many who may have been raised as Christian but do not consider themselves Christian. This is why analysis views the cultural impact of religion upon language. We are all impacted by our culture. In Islamic lands, Muslims are target by the Islamists but in confrontation, resistance quickly dissipated (Bat Ye'or) historically, and freedom fell. When Islamists settle in western lands and do not integrate, the host natives deal with increased crime, "no go zones", and the increasing aspects of civil war. As violence increases against host citizens, demands are made by the guests, and when the welfare finances become unsustainable, conflict is inevitable. A huge step towards this conflict is when police are targeted. This is an attack on authority in general; a glue that is necessary for any society to survive. When police are out-gunned and flee, the criminal mindset is filled with resolve. In the states, it is the "Ferguson Effect" where officers fear being labeled racist, and having their own families attacked by "protestors." Baltimore politicians taught police that they had to preserve their own employment first in order to protect and serve. Their service has been targeted since 2008. This video is similar to others and is disturbing. As Angela Merkel invited Islam into Europe, she and Obama told the public that they were "refugees" and were "women and children" in need of protection. They were actually 80-90% male, age 18-35. 100,000 troops now patrol France, yet their politicians claim that there is no foreign enemy present as in past wars. The elite who imported Islam refuse to name those of whom protection is needed. Children are growing up with this as a norm, with armed guards posted at Jewish schools. One French police officer allegedly snapped and the result has been rioting, looting, burning cars; night after night, even though he faces charges. Lying by Muslims, especially CAIR, exasperate the American public. "Fake Hate" has consequences. Discernment via deception detection is critical. Why did she distance herself from being a Muslim?

I think that we will come out on top as women, as people of color, as Muslims, as transgender people, as people who are part of the disabled community — I think that we’ll come out on top.”

She pulls out the popular political identity victim list that politicians use to exploit, of which Islam's direct teaching and practice are contrary to what the west believes as basic human rights. Islam executes homosexuals, as well as men who claim to be women, and it subjugates women. Why are Muslim women taught to cover themselves up?

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.” (Koran 33:59)

Here is an article that explains why the coverings are symbols of sexual violence and they identify those who can be targeted.The hina clause tells us "why" they are to cover themselves.

Note the word "think" as a weak assertion for someone who is above human emotions. She does not say "we will come out on top" but she only "thinks" this to be so. This sheds light on why she identifies more as Arab than Muslim. You should be able to identify her statement as "fake hate" but if confirmation is needed:

Research into why she refused to give a date showed that she was detained before the 2016 election, while Barak Obama was president.

Journalists ran with her deceptive story without checking out dates or corroborating it with Customs. This is an example of "fake news"; as it fits a narrative.

It is not an error by a journalist, but a pattern of deception by the political elite and main stream media in criminal conspiracy against the people.

117 comments:

"Adele Allan and her husband raise their children as what many like to call “free-range” kids. They don’t go to school, don’t get vaccinated, and don’t have any rules."

'I don't see any need to inject any foreign substance directly into the blood stream. That's not how children will come into the contact with a germ naturally anyway, be it in the mouth or another way.'

Adele said: 'I don't have an issue with that. There is no need for him to be able to read and write at this age anyway.'

Instead, Adele and Matt believe that Ulysses and Ostara are becoming curious about letters and numbers from seeing them out and about.

She added: 'They see letters on drain covers and numbers on signs and then learning happens as a consequence of just being out in the world, rather than it being forced upon them in a classroom that is not particularly inspiring.'

Ridiculous. I travel frequently thru airports for my job. I have TSA Pre check to get thru the lines faster. And guess what... I was stopped and held up for deeper screening, RANDOMLY. Should I claim that I experienced hate because I'm a white woman, with freckles wearing pink uggs? I'm sure that is why they stopped me. I wasn't what I would call uncooperative but I was a bit snarky because it slowed me down. TSA wasn't rude to me. I had to take off my boots and I was annoyed because that is one of the perks of TSA Pre Check. But the bottom line is they can do whatever they need to in their role and we as passengers have no choice but to follow the directions.

I don't believe this woman. I'm sick of this fake hate, race card, poor me, victim status. You want to travel, you have to follow the rules.

Heather wore a New York Rangers cap. The TSA agent made a comment about it being a Bruins fan.

In S/A, we believe that even in humor, the words have meaning, as they have been chosen in less than a millisecond of time. She whispered, "uh oh" to me.

Sure enough, she was flagged for "random" checking.

Another thought...

if most terrorists were short, chubby, ruddy skin and this was consistently found linked to terror, I would rather be delayed for 2 hours, myself, than have everyone be "equally profiled" and harming the once art-like status of western travel. Let me be delayed than everyone else.

Today, we have lost civility and the outworking of a selfless culture.

Nadeem Muhammed (43), was in court on Monday for flying with a pipe bomb in his hand luggage. He had been boarding a Ryanair flight to Bergamo, Italy when he was held under the UK’s Terrorism Act following a security screening. After allegedly telling officers the device had been planted by someone else, he was released on bail, however, and allowed to travel.

Which he did. He flew to Italy and stayed there while tests in the UK revealed that the ‘batteries’ were actually a “viable device“, containing sufficient explosives to cause “serious damage and loss of life” on board a plane, as heard by the court. Consisting of a “small pipe, like a large market pen,” it was filled with a “smokeless propellant often found in ammunition.” On his return to the UK by way of Manchester Airport on Sunday, Muhammed was arrested and charged with being in possession of an explosive substance. He is now back in custody and due to appear in court in March.

Canada

Brilliant. This is even better than the man who decapitated someone on a bus in Canada and now walks free.

He just needs to be reminded to take his medicine.

This is how the elite value lives. The killers are the victims and the victims are of no value.

Before we condemn Canada for this madness, we need to only think of how we would not want America viewed through our elitist obsession with decriminalizing crime and criminals.

I recall going through customs after an extended holiday in Thailand, Bali and Australia. The customs agent asked what my occupation was. I said "computer salesman". She replied "you don't look like a computer salesman".I said "oh good, the vacation worked"She laughed and cleared me through.

I aspire to the theory that the posher,stranger the child's name the poor and dumber the mother (there is usually no dad around)

Invariably when i am out and about town, i see moms the lower end of the socio economic tables (sometimes even below that) calling their children Mercedes, Prunella, Aristotle,Chelsea,Delmonte (the poor girl named after a fruit manufacturer)Chardonney,Bunty and names that are pronounced one way and spelt ridiculously. Named after celebs, cars, booze, countries, it reminds me of the classic sketch featuring Wayne and Waynetta Slob when they named their first daughter Frogmella cos it's exotic and the 2nd one Spudulika (after Spud u like) The also got a "brahn" baby from when wayne ran off with Naomi Campbell and renamed him Canoe (after keanu Reeves) and now she was "like all the other mothers on the estate."

They are supposed to be a typical couple on benefits eating, drinking and smoking and being common and muck.

If you live in the UK you will see that it is generally true.Wealthier parents and those better educated tend towards simpler names, common as in well known and popular names)The upper class and royalty tend towards classic names such as George, Henry, William, Henry (harry) and also tend to include names passed down through the generations.

Celebs go for exotic names in general in order for their children to stand out and be unique so we end up with names like Moon Unit, Apple, Blue Ivy, North West,Zowie and so on.

These unusual names tend to work their way down the social classes till those on the bottom layer have weird names with creative spelling.

Then the celebs go back to reasonably normal names again and so the cycle continues.

There are parents who give their kids uncommon names in order to stand out, these can be due to nationality, (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish traditional names)They can be a historical name from way back in the family.They can be a name that meant something to the parents.An uncommon name when the child was born can become more common as time goes by.

My own name for instance was extremely rare when i was born (1964) especially with the uncommon I spelling and most who were around were spelt Tanya.I have 4 brothers, with dad choosing their names, Craig which again wasn't that common in 1967, Piers which was very uncommon back in 1969 and still not that common today, Merlin (Dad was reading about King Arthur and the Knight of the round table at the time, We are grateful it wasn't Enid Blyton or the Teletubbies) and Brett (nearly named Straun) who sadly died aged only a couple of years.

Merlin carried on the tradition of unusual names naming his daughter Abra which when paired with our surname Cadogan sounds like abracadabra.He chose it because he is an entertainer, juggling, escapology and similar as well as surfing, thus the name had meaning in relation to his own name (magic) and his line of work.

As an aside till i got my name i was called Mitzi for the first week or so.Also my name is not common, nor is our surname.There is however another lady with the same name as me which I found quite exciting :)

Meet my brother Merlin, proudly upholding the family tradition of being nutters. :)

"So, NO reliable denial, an amazing need to persuard,and a huge amount of unnecessary language. This was a YES or NO question.

This is just a tiny part of one of the most bizarre, rambling, not based in reality, speech I've ever heard in my life."

My opinion: Trump ENJOYS being put on the defensive by the press. (He even stated this fact today during the press conference--that he "enjoys this (the back and forth with the press)". He enjoys setting everyone straight, he enjoys the joking/insulting thing with cnn, he loves right away presenting the "facts" that disprove whatever angle the press has taken...he is like a conductor conducting an orchestra....he loves it...he's not terribly good at rhetorical argument...in fact, he's not very good at it, because he likes to just talk down-to-earth. But this is why he jumps right away on the defensive...because he LOVES defending himself to the press. I'm not sure why he loves it so much, but he does...I think initially the press got under his skin, but now he is actually invigorated by the back-and-forth with the press...probably because he knows he's good at it, and he doesn't lose his cool, so why not love it?

"His answer to being asked to say just yes or no...is "Russia is a ruse". He CANNOT make a reliable denial.

Can we then say, based on SA, that "Russia is NOT a ruse?" lol"

This is something linguistically that Trump does a lot...Rather than issue a denial...He will say something like "That's fake news." So here again, we have a similar thing with "Russia is a ruse" in place of a denial.

I honestly don't think he's lying when he does this linguistically, although I agree it is sensitive. I am not sure why he does it...I get the sense that his rhetorical skills are good enough to realize it would be more effective to make a denial...but yet he doesn't....and I kinda think it's because he likes making these "headline- making statements" like "Russia is a ruse" "Such and such is fake news".....I have even wondered if he fails to issue a denial just so the press will keep coming at him....I think he derives a LOT of enjoyment from the back and forth with the press...did you hear him today say that he thinks he would make a "great reporter" but "not as good as the cnn guy" and did you notice where he was giving cnn helpful hints to improve their shows?

I don't know...I just feel like maybe unconsciously Trump is not trying to actually "win" the arguments with the press...with whatever they are accusing him of...if he issued effective denials the "discussion" with the press would be over. I think Trump very much enjoys talking (with the press) about all of the things he is being accused of, all of the things he's noticed that he considers unfair (oftentimes involving actions by Hillary Clinton)...it's worth considering when watching the press conference whether Trump may (unconsciously) be failing to issue effective denials so as to continue the "discussion".I noticed when he first started talking about Putin way back when, and he said "I think I would get along great with Putin...I think he's a great guy"...he failed to take any stance regarding Putin...it's like he was just opening the book to see what would end up being written about him and Putin, what would happen between them...it's very odd, but sometimes I get the sense he likes things to be "open-ended" and therefore fails to effectively deny things, and sometimes just bizarrely would like things to be "open-ended"....I also think it was smart he did that regarding Putin...yes Putin is a dirtbag but I think Trump had some intuitive sense that coming right out and saying that he hated him was not a good idea. I don't think he has any underhanded dealings with Russia like he's being accused of having.

Maybe Trump's responses to questions from the Press are his attempts at being a 'politician' - which does not come natural to him.It's possible that he is trying to learn a politician's way of avoiding a direct answer, rather than bluntly saying what he really thinks - at the moment.

I've never been an airline passenger but I don't really see why anyone would get upset over extra security measures. It's like when I've had to go to my county courthouse to pay my personal property tax or one of the times I had to participate in a court hearing, there are lines and metal detectors and I KNOW this is a process that can take a while so I arrive early so I can be on time to my destination. I know that there is chance the zipper or the button on my jeans might make the metal detector go off and I don't get mad because I'm made to step to the side and examined further with one of those wand things or be patted down. I realize it's nothing against me personally. It's for the GREATER GOOD that these procedures have been put into place. I could see being upset if the sheriff deputies were only doing searches on blonde females and letting everyone else pass through but that's never the case. Just like I'm sure it's never the case that all brown skinned people are detained at the airport for further inspection. In my opinion the ones who object too much about procedures to ensure the safety of others are probably the ones that need to be looked at more closely. It's like when people have Social Services called on them and they just get furious at the child protection worker who is doing her job to protect kids, why get mad or defensive if you've nothing to hide?

The office of POTUS MUST have some protective limits in place. Full and complete Disclosure would be Gravely detrimental to the citizens of our country, and other countries as well. When any person is limited on how to answer a question (whether under Oath or while a Public official) it Does depend also on How a question is Asked. Interviewers, Investigators & Reporters would benefit by using simple, direct, one-part questions when seeking answers. Any other method exposes a wide swath of interpretations.

I am an average white female, 50's, federal employee that really doesnt' fly that often, maybe once or twice a year in a good year, often flights paid by my employer. I get pulled out for the extra screening, my carry-on opened and inspected, no big deal. But that is the deal. I WANT people to be inspected. I don't feel like I was singled out cause my butt is big or I didn't put on make-up today. Some people if you ask them a single question, they are being targeted, for what ever they believe is their personal issue.I read Dylan Roofs manifesto,( and I'm not supporting him, I feel he got what he had coming to him) and one thing I agreed with him on. This is not word for word, but something to the effect- white people don't think about race, not ours or others, but black people are taught from birth to think about it, to push it, to know they are targeted for it.That did make some sense to me. I would hate to live with that hanging over me every day. I live my life and I like to think that most of what happens to me is because of me. I not continuously looking for who is responsible for my problems, but what can I do to fix it. (I also questioned did he really write the manifesto or copy it from someone elses writing. ??? I guess i'll never know)

Now I feel that I have forgotten what the article was even about. Sorry

Anonymous Anonymous said...Maybe Trump's responses to questions from the Press are his attempts at being a 'politician' - which does not come natural to him.It's possible that he is trying to learn a politician's way of avoiding a direct answer, rather than bluntly saying what he really thinks - at the moment.

I hope he never learns to be a politician. I voted for him because he is not one. I hope in the future, many more people, who have never held office run and many that have held office all their lives are voted out. I read yesterday that people in Michigan are trying to get Kid Rock to run for senate. YES! I wish I could vote for him.

"I'm not sure why he loves it so much, but he does...I think initially the press got under his skin, but now he is actually invigorated by the back-and-forth with the press...probably because he knows he's good at it, and he doesn't lose his cool, so why not love it?"

Trump grew up in Brooklyn. I once witnessed an 80-something neighbor lady tell off another much younger male neighbor who plowed snow in front of her driveway. "I'm from Brooklyn!" was part of her bluster, and the other neighbor backed off. It was interesting and hard to fully understand from my perspective as a midwestern transplant.

It would be interesting to see more analysis of Trump. The Brooklyn-raised and New-York-businessman-who-negotiates-honest-labor-out-of-NY-union-workers context will be an important consideration.

@Peter - Thanks for the knowledge of the novelty name theory. I've never heard of it. I will look it up.

@Tania - That is very interesting. I am a college-educated, middle-class American woman from an average, middle class American family; my name is Kristina (my surname is German hence the spelling). Only my father has some college education. My husband's name is very traditional British royalty (James); he is also college-educated. He comes from a high-school educated, middle-class, average American family as well. Our children have normal, traditionally-spelled names.

We chose our children's names because we wanted to help secure their future successes as much as we could b/c there is still a lot of prejudice based on names alone. For example, how many CEOs of companies are named "Destiny"; "Chastity"; "Grayse" etc. Wikipedia lists a group of well-known CEOs, and they are mostly "Mark" "Tom" "Jeff" "David" "Michael" "Steve" etc.

I am assuming that because I treat and regard my children as humans and worry about their success in life, rather than novelties.

Thanks Tania and Peter. I will have to show my husband the novelty name theory, too. I'm sure he'll find it interesting.

Some think President Trump is a Master Persuader. He likes to "pace and lead." Remember "The Art Of the Deal?" He keeps telling everyone he is a negotiator. Perhaps he should be viewed through that lens. This might be one of the main factors to keep in mind when trying to figure out what he is doing. His exaggerations or untruths (however you want to look at it) are most always ridiculous statements that keep the press chasing their tails. This is not unintentional on his part. For example, in the big picture, squabbling over inauguration attendance numbers does not threaten our Nation. But it does allow him to drive the news cycle because the press cares about stupid stuff like that and it generally makes them look hysterical and petty. It seems most people are tired of how the press behaves and his calling them out may actually serve to make him look more trustworthy overall (especially to his base). On other outrageous things he says that DO have an impact on our country, (immigration for example) notice at the start, he makes an over the top statement to meet the emotional level of his base and then over time leads to a more reasonable stance. He is fighting against a lot of forces (a corrupt government, entrenched bureaucrats, RINOS, Globalists, bias press who like to twist words and look for any excuse to demonize him, shocked and angry democrats etc.) and he's new at politics so he needs some room to settle in. Hillary Clinton's campaign did a good job of trying to brand him as Hitler He says he wants to build a wall to protect our borders. I haven't heard him say he wants to build concentration camps. It seems like a lot for him to try and overcome. He really doesn't have any long and meaningful connections in DC compared to other politicians. And not many there seem to like him.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are all kinds of factors to consider when observing what he is doing. He was voted into office. It's fair to say that most citizens are tired of the status quo. He deserves the chance to lead. Scott Adams has some interesting ideas concerning President Trump's behavior. I've listed some of them. You should check it out if you want some insight into how a business man might try to govern our country. Donald Trump's approach, to some, maybe viewed as the most effective way to reverse what is happening to our country because the government and the press are so manipulative. "Fight fire with fire" and all that. JMO

one of the SA analysis requirements is to use the author's language. that is how Trump speaks so it has to be taken into account.

I would think that some of the charges against Trump do not warrant a strict denial as they are often fake news. don't argue with crazy people. it makes you look crazy. Trump isn't going to play that game as he knows there is no upside for him.

You know what? If you think Trump is such a pathological liar, why don't you say one thing that you think he has lied about?

I have known pathological (sociopathic) liars and what they typically do when confronted is immediately DENY in terms of "I didn't do THAT"...I believe SCott Peterson also does that in his interview when asked directly if he killed Lacy, he makes a denial like "I would never do violence towards women"....Scott Peterson is a pathological liar. The sociopath immediateley denies to create a "barrier" to getting further to the truth.

I believe part of why Trump doesn't issue direct denials is because he "gets' what is going on....he doesn't want to dignify the charges against him...He has a manipulative press foaming at the mouth, because Trump dares to try to take away things like abortion and baby part selling; Trump knows he is up against a media that distorts everything he tries to do (such as spinning his efforts to protect the country against terrorism into a hatred for immigrants, as xenophobia, as racism. The press twists everything that he tries to do and it is absurd.I personally do not deny things I consider utterly absurd, or accusations I can clearly see are manipulations of me. Like when my ex blew up at me for taking allergy medicine calling me a "drug addict" and storming off (later I found out he was starting these fights so that he could go do drugs), I did not issue a denial...I wasn't like "Im not a drug addict!" because the accusation was absurd, and I don't drink or do drugs, and he knew that, so why the hell am I going to issue a denial?!!

Trump knows the media is attempting to manipulate everything. If I were him, I wouldn't issue denials. He is talking to a group of people who defend and advocate the selling of baby parts by people who pre-order baby parts at the beginning of the day at an abortion clinic. I have seen cnn defending this grisly practice and attacking the guy who took the undercover videos. Trump is up against people who care more about someone being "offended" when they are stopped at an airport than they do about the kid who was blown up by a pressure cooker bomb at the Boston Marathon.

The press is a swarm of idiotic, evil people, who attempt to use the giant information machine they control to tear Trump down and warp the views of the general public.

Trump sees the press as a bunch of rabid dogs. Why should he have to defend himself to them? He knows damn well if he puts one fire out, the press will just start another one.

And, like the press, you are ranting and raving that "Trump is a liar!" yet you don't say what you think he lied about, and that really speaks volumes.

I am not making excuses for him but I don't see the lie or lies people are claiming he made. they just say he is a liar. so what are these lies??

if I were Trump (I am not) I would not necessarily deny some of the accusations made by the press as arguing with the leftist media which has a history of deceit is not in Trump's interest.

I am speaking for myself and am not an expert on SA and to the comments above . the normal language of a person needs to be taken into consideration when doing SA. I hope Peter can clarify this as I would be interested to hear his opinion.

The press are complete liars and stoop to ANY level to manipulate info. Take those undercover videos of PP baby part scandal...CNN jumped on board with accusing the videos of being edited, when it was clear that regardless of any editing that could have taken place, the message of what PP was doing had been clearly captured on the video. Not to mention that the FULL videos were released on-line at the same time and actually if you watch one of them, it makes PP look EVEN worse. The press are absolutely liars and they create propaganda that is very dangerous for our country. Including spinning Trumps efforts to protect our country into "he hates "immigrants"". Why doesn't the press mention the heroin (which actually isn't heroin, it's a deadly anesthetic being sold as Heroin) pouring in across the Mexican border that is killing so many young people across the country? Does Trump have a right to protect the country against that? Oh, I'm sorry he called the drug cartel "bad hombres" so that is the main focus by the press....not the evils of deadly "heroin" pouring in across the border but the fact that Trump said "bad hombres" which means "bad men" so that makes him so racist! Oh my God, he said "bad men" in Spanish!!!!! I'm gonna cry myself to sleep!!!! The press is absolutely retarded! Absurd really doesn't fully describe them.

It's actually absolutely disgusting the way the press tries to sabotage Trump. It's hilarious really. Like I'm sure the drug cartel guys are like crying themselves to sleep because Trump called them "bad hombres" lmao! It's just as much the fault of the people who buy into what the press says...how could anyone be so stupid to think that Trump calling the drug cartel "bad hombres" is offensive? HOw is it humanly possible that someone is that stupid to think that? Like...it's OK you have 20 year olds dropping dead like flies across the country from fetanyl much of which comes from Mexico, but those drug cartel guys...boy, I bet they lost a lot of sleep when they heard Trump call them "bad hombres"...really, I bet they ran right to their therapist. Yeah OK. People are very stupid.

Peter is correct that it is "moral narcissism" because it's pathological pseudo-morality designed to make the person look righteous and "good". I have to bite my tongue so hard not to comment to people posts on social media crying because Trump said "bad hombres" and all the crap these people spew. I don't bother because it's so obvious that their agenda is not to find the truth or defend the truth...they just want to pat themselves on the back that they are "good". It's like whatever, not worth arguing with them.

The 57-year-old, despite an overwhelming case against him and in the absence of any viable defence, had pleaded not guilty in June 2014 to the disappearances of Alvin and Kathy Liknes and their grandson Nathan O’Brien, who was staying with them overnight.

[...]

After being incinerated in a “burn barrel,” commonly used to dispose of garbage in rural areas, all that was left of three human beings was biological material, as the lawyers called it, and several tiny pieces of teeth.

[...]

At the first bloodied scene, the Liknes’ house, Garland was as Parker once put it, “mistake-free.” Not a trace of him, no DNA or hair or fibre, was ever found in the house.

But as the jurors learned, Garland had in his storehouse of disturbing supplies the protective “bunny suits” forensic police officers wear to prevent contamination, and he was known, both within his family and via his web searches on police techniques, as a compulsive and meticulous researcher and planner.

He emerged as the key suspect only after surveillance video in the Likneses’ neighbourhood showed a green Ford pickup creeping through the area in the early hours of June 30. Police released pictures of the truck, and Garland’s sister Patti told police she thought it was his.

At the 40-acre farm, Garland was either uncharacteristically careless, or more likely, ran out of time.

While he was able to burn the three bodies and much of the evidence, proof that the grandparents and the little boy they loved was everywhere — Kathy’s DNA on a meat hook and a corner of the truck’s license plate, and the DNA of all three, and Garland’s too, in a pair of his rubber boots.

[...]

Photographs from the first day showed two unmistakably recognizable adults lying on their stomachs, naked but for the adult diapers that had become part of his fantasy for “bound and diapered” adult women. Beside them, curled up, the image less clear, was a smaller figure Parker and Faulkner told the jurors was Nathan.

[...]

Unusually, it was Parker who figured out what the photographs showed, and made the “disclosure” to lead Detectives Lee Treit and John Orr — a reverse of the norm.

Sorry I inadvertently omitted the "how" the pictures came to be above:

"The one-time medical student — he suffered a breakdown in first year, his mother testified, and never returned – was also unlucky. A survey aircraft with a sophisticated camera just happened to be over the farm on July 1 and July 2 that year."

Speaking from a Canadian's perspective, and from everything I've heard people around me remark, and comment about on the radio, *nobody* agreed with that decision. Nobody. Slack jawed and disbelief basically sums up people's reaction to that verdict.

Tania said,The also got a "brahn" baby from when wayne ran off with Naomi Campbell and renamed him Canoe (after keanu Reeves) and now she was "like all the other mothers on the estate."

haha!!! Years ago I was waiting with my son in a (backed-up) doctor's office. The receptionist called "Keanu" and every single parent turned to see who "Keanu" was. Given his age at the time, I would say they were big Matrix fans.

And these male reporters ( I don't watch TV so I googled to see some reactions) after the Trump press conference yesterday are WHINING like babies!!!!! These guys are pathetic. I'll see if I can find the video I watched, but the guy is whining like a little girl beginning with "The press conference was wild...it was Festivus...instead of talking about his good points and what he's going to do he was accusing us of being fake news blahblahblah". Thank God that whining little b&tch of a man isn't in charge of this country. Go home and have your wife give you a teddy bear to cuddle...or your husband or whatever...what a wimp!!!!!! I'm sorry but give me a break....like is there for whining, for men whining?!?! With ISIS etc.?! ISIS is laughing I'm sure at these male reporters. Pathetic.

He is the master manipulator. IMO he knows exactly what he is doing. For instance, reference the Executive Order for the travel ban. I observe in hindsight there was a laundry list of terrorism incidents released that he/his admin said the media barely covered. Then what happens? It's all they talk about, in conjunction with the EO. Most importantly, that Executive Order can (and most likely is,) being achieved via internal policy procedure. IMO, the EO was orchestrated so that the general public could "see" he was following through on a campaign promise and that he was taking care of the American people. If anything bad happens, then politically/optically "it's the Dems fault". But rest assured, if travellers arrive at the border they can be turned away without any reason. It's within border security's purview. It happened at our end. Some Canadians were turned away at the border when they said they were going to Trump's inauguration. I suppose border security suspected they were travelling with the intention of causing trouble so he wouldn't let them in. If you go back in Trump's Twitter feed you can see he addresses border security/the front line directly. The EO is more about show than anything else.

He is driving the media nuts. I listen to my own Canadian media turn themselves into pretzels analyzing what he says. They really need to figure out which bone to pick.

The male news anchors shown on the video link above look like perverts, yet they, because of technology, can invade people's homes with their perversity. Trump theoretically should just disengage from the press, but he can't because their propaganda machine is too powerful, but I wonder, what if he just got up their and said something like "I don't watch you guys because you spew nonsense"....I don't think he can take that approach but these perverted cnn pseudo-men should just be ignored imo.

That's a huge reason why I don't watch TV and why I don't have cable...that is absolutely disgusting to be in the comfort of my own home and to have to have a man like the man at 2:57 in the video link above appear on a screen talking to me...so disgusting.

Or the reporter at 3:25...disgusting...how is that relaxing for people to look at these perverted looking news anchors...they are in essence inviting them into their home when they turn on the TV and have to look at them talking to them. People should be careful of who they let into their homes even on a television screen. I would feel like my home was being invaded if I looked up and saw either one of them on a screen talking to me.

"I will build a great wall -- and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me --and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."-----Uh, nope...Mexico is NOT paying for the wall

_________

Uh, yes, they will. It will be either via duties (on trade) or via tolls. Case in point, Canada got sick and tired trying to negotiate the bridge construction between Windsor, Ontario, Canada and Detroit. (Obama said f.u.) So Canada (Harper) arbitrarily decided the bridge will be built and paid for initially "by the Canadian tax payer" and the monies subsequently will be recovered via toll. End of discussion. As long as our money is @ $0.70 there is more commuter traffic flowing this way than your way in the way of sundries. We'll get our money back and then some.

There is more money flowing to Mexico than to the US. The US will skim the cream. End of discussion. Case in point, although not obviously so, Mexico governments (national and border town) are flipping their collective sh!t because billions of dollars which are "transferred" to Mexico via illegals sending money home either in the form of social assistance paid to them via the American tax payer or via the black market/under the table wages earners and/or potential criminals (jail = cost to American tax payer) is very quickly disappearing.

And guess what? Hundreds of illegals a day are crossing the border from the US into Canada because of a loophole in our "refugee program". Illegals that lied to get social assistance in the US and/or who were working under the table and know that the gig is up, are MIGRATING into Canada to take advantage of our social assistance in the name of "refugee". From the US. Yeah, right.

It's bullsh!t.

IMO, if Trump told it like it is, the left would loose their collective minds. He's the best thing that happened to the US. I wish he was ours.

"109 people out of hundreds of thousands of travelers" were affected by the immigration executive order."-----it was 60,000+

This is a perfect example of "subjective dictionary".

IMO, this is where SA strives to find out what is meant by "affected".

On the one hand, you agree with 60,000 travellers were "affected". On the other hand, we need to find out what 109 travellers represent. Why were they "affected". In this case does affected mean "detained" while 59,000+ were "delayed"? We need to determined what is meant by the word "affected".

The third option is, 109 were affected, 60,000 were inconvenienced via delay.

Trump is not a polished politician. He's a business man and used to a certain business lingo. Politically, it doesn't "translate" (report on,) well at all. Especially when you throw national security into the mix. IMO, the more (wth did he just say,) he is, I think, "sensitive!" (classified). Then I go hunting... (duckduckgo)

I disagree with you about Mexico. They will pay. Not directly from the Mexican coffers, but via commuter traffic. The President really doesn't have a choice in the matter. In regards to commuter traffic, it will be both Americans (travelling south and returning) and vice versa. Regardless, the wall is a diversion. What truly matters to the Mexican President is what he is utimately on the hook for. i.e., what he has been "neglecting"/allowing the American tax payer to pick up/pay for. *This* is what really matters.

Do you know what strikes me the most? We're all "squirrels" in this game. We're like cats trying to follow the red laser light. I keep wondering, what's really going on. What is important?

Corbyn is a full blood socialist and entered the leadership race of the labour party as a last minute wildcard rank outside and to everyone's surprise and shock won.He has survived one leadership challenge and currently has been replacing resigning or sacked cabinet members almost as often as Italy has a general election.12 defied the 3 line whip (they have to vote the way the party says and voted against brexit.He didn't sack them but gave them a stiff talking to on the grounds there pretty much isn't anyone with any experience he can shove onto the front benches(cabinet) and the previous incumbents won't come back with him at the helm.

UK politics is a blast right now and gets better each day as labour looks to be coming in at best 3rd and at worst 4th or losing their deposit in the 2 upcoming by elections caused by MP's resigning.

Yes, that would be great! Um, except make sure she's model-perfect, (also I like to critique hair styles so that will be an issue), an accomplished and published physician, well-traveled, well-read, rich, will buy me lots of luxurious gifts, famous, doting, gourmet chef (actually I don't eat), zero expectations of happiness, and I have like 100 more qualifications...Let me get back to you after I look over them all.

"Everything that he says about the president is colored by his own personal dispute he’s got running with President Trump and it should be taken with a grain of salt because John McCain’s the guy who’s advocatedfor war everywhere,” Paul said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“He would bankrupt the nation. We’re very lucky John McCain’s not in charge because I think we’d be in perpetual war,” Paul added.

Great to see the left is calling Melania a "whore" for saying the Lord's Prayer at a rally!!! On a similar note, my son told me yesterday that last year at the Black History Month assembly, the chorus sang "Imagine" including "Imagine no religion". Gosh, what would we do without the left keeping an eye on things!!! They sound like a bunch of rapists calling Melania a "whore" for saying a prayer but then again should that be surprising when they consider selling baby parts a "human right"?

I am NOT a Muslim. And for people to identify as "I am a Muslim too" is just stupid. Earlier this week people were asked to identify with the immigrants. Again, stupid. They were not referring to legal immigrants. They were referring to illegal immigrants.

Can't we just have a "I am who I am" day? I'm not going to apologize for who I am and that is what these stupid lefty loons are pushing for all to do. Stupid !

Check this out: I googled Michael Moore and apparently the gossip is that he is transitioning into a woman according to gay observers...recently on The View he showed up with long hair and his facial hair has been lasered out. I gotta say that is gonna be one motherf&ckin ugly woman

A badly decomposed body has been found near Mount Macedon, north of Melbourne.

A bushwalker reportedly found the body among rugged bush at the base of Mount Macedon about 12.30pm on Monday. The body was reportedly found near, or under some logs.

Forensic officers arrived at the scene about three hours later and were seen walking into the bush carrying shovels and an axe.

Police at the scene said the body was that of a woman and was "considerably decomposed", the Bendigo Advertiser reports.

However, the body is yet to be formally identified.

"Police are currently in Mount Macedon after the discovery of human remains about 12.30pm," a police spokeswoman said.

"The remains will be taken for forensic testing to determine the identity of the deceased and the cause of death."

The body was found not far from an area where police searched for missing Melbourne mother Karen Ristevski in December.

Police expect to be at the scene of the find overnight on Monday. Homicide squad detectives and members of the State Emergency Service are there as well.

It's believed the body remains at the scene.

An undertaker arrived just after 9pm as investigators continued to work under spotlights.

Detectives are not expected to comment on the discovery until forensic tests confirm the identity of the dead person.

The site is accessible via a series of narrow dirt roads, which wind past country homes close to the Mount Macedon golf club.

Police have cordoned off an area at the corner of Salisbury Road and Loch Road, a hilly single-vehicle track that runs past the Macedon Regional Park.

Although it is likely to be some time before police are able to officially identify the body, dozens of journalists and photographers are gathered at the scene watching from afar as investigators, some with shovels, work among thick undergrowth.

The place where the body was discovered is a number of metres from the road, behind a small hill, making it difficult to observe from behind the police cordon.

At about 6.45pm, a couple turned up at scene and told officers they had previously seen a man in the area with a shovel and made a joke to him about burying a body.

After recounting the story to uniformed officers, the couple was taken away from the media contingent to behind the police cordon.

They are currently being spoken to by plain-clothes detectives.

Locals Krystal Pate and Alastair McLellan visited the scene on Monday afternoon and said the entire area around Mount Macedon was a very popular place for hikers.

However they said they didn't realise the road near where the body was found went so deep into the forest.

"I thought it was a no-through road until today," said Mr McLellan.

"Though you would have your local people going for walks around here."

However, resident Paul Gordon said walkers avoided the bush track, near where the body was found, because it was so rough.

"It's isolated. No one walks through there because it's so rough," Mr Gordon told Channel Seven.

"It's just real rough bush."

Ian Flannery said "very, very few people at all" ventured into that part of the bush.

"You might see a couple of walkers, maybe a four-wheel-drive driven down every now and then, but it's very, very isolated."

In December, police looking for Ms Ristevski searched dams and grassland in Toolern Vale, about 25 kilometres from where the body was found on Monday.

Some of Cliff Richard's somewhat puzzling responses made to the press concerning historical accusations of sexual abuse:

"The question I’ve got now is I can’t understand how someone could knowingly tell a lie like that about another human being."

"Especially knowing that human being was me and it was going to make all the stories all around the world. I have no hate or vengeance, but I do have a curiosity to find out why... why did he do that?"

"I knew it was a lie, he must have known it was a lie, God knew it was a lie, but it went on for so long. Even now, I can’t even say I had charges dropped because I was never arrested and never charged. So that’s another question – why did I have to go through all of that? I have no bitterness. Curiosity, but no bitterness."

"It’s been quite an incredible time and a learning process for me. The one thing I’m very grateful to South ­Yorkshire Police for is they’ve shown me I had more love than they did."

"I was more loved than they were. To realise that even people who don’t buy my records necessarily, even they were coming up in the street and airports and wishing me well and saying ‘good on you, we’re right behind you mate’. I appreciated the support the public gave me."

"It has been a very difficult couple of years. A horrible time all told."

"I forgave my accuser about two nights into my tragic 22 months, because I thought ‘I don’t think I’m going to be able to cope with this if the hate and vengeance is building up in me’."

"I just had to say the words and I said ‘I forgive him, I forgive this guy. I don’t know who he is, but I forgive him’."

"I slowly lost the anger that was there. Although it didn’t help me sleep. I never got more than about three hours a night for those 22 months and two days. Even though I had support of friends and fans, there would come that point in the evening where I would say ‘goodnight’ and then you’re on your own again. Those were the most difficult times."

"For me, being able to pray about it helped. That’s what got me through."

"I just lay in bed and I prayed regularly and because I never felt God gave up on me, I wasn’t going to give up on him."

1. Picture the scene - a person or a number of persons have accused you of vile sexual offences - what would be your overriding emotion? I know "curiosity" would not be one of them. More like a great deal of anger, indignation and an overwhelming urge to wage a furious battle in the courts.

2. Neither would I be in any mood to indulge in soul-searching navel-gazing "questions". I would not care a jot about anything except clearing my name and bring my false accusers to justice.

3. Nowhere in his statements does he issue an outright denial ("I knew it was a lie, he must have known it was a lie, God knew it was a lie, but it went on for so long")

4. His desire to tell the audience that he harbours no ill-will towards his accusers is sensitive to him:"I have no bitterness. Curiosity, but no bitterness.""I have no hate or vengeance""I had more love than they did""I forgive" (4 x times)

5. The number THREE

At pains to tell the audience the exact timeframe in months and days! Again, for such a nightmare scenario, this information would be an irrelevance, being eclipsed by the desire to clear one's name.

"I never got more than about three hours [of sleep] a night for those 22 months and two days".

Cliff Richard in interviews literally drowns others with words - his long-winded monologues also ring alarm bells for me. On the surface, much of seems like hyperbole, but the crap he seemingly talks if and when left uninterrupted is quite revealing.

Was all this said in the free editing stage? Choosing his own words and not the language of others?Is he answering question?Is the statement edited?

Previous family statement:

One of her husbands first statements

We had a ahh b ahh bit of ahh an argument ahh in regards to, um, the store figures, and um, how she was going to you know improve them

Note here the plural "we" in regards to the "argument" about "store figures" and "how she (singular) was going to you know improve them" Not that they (plural) were going to improve them. Was this "argument" more one sided, him more forceful. Note the minimising of the "argument, "a bit". Note too the stuttering when it comes the "argument" making it sensitive. If he is not a stutterer it is all the more sensitive.

"and, she had had a bad day the day before at the store",

Do they work together at "the store" what constitutes a "bad day"Is it financial?Did she argue with someone?Was a delivery late?etc.. What caused her to have a "bad day" according to her husband.Would one call this "subtle disparagement" Does he blame her for "store figures" and it's why he says it's only her who is "going to improve them" A guilty person will often find a way to justify their behavior by blaming the victim, but in a subtle, manner. If it is the case that the husband is involved in her disappearance and possible homicide, will he blame the victim, his wife, for the "store figures" In other words, it (whatever it maybe) is all her fault, i wouldn't have reacted like that if she had not done xyz.

"um, and on the Wednesday morning, um, she just went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs and just went out through the garage, ahh, she might have just walked down the street or just to clear her head because that was the last thing she said to me, um, I’m gonna to go and clear my head, um, can’t do it here."

"Um" "Ahh" and derivatives of are often used to pause and give oneself time to think. This comes about as we see above, at the mention of going up the stairs and coming down, making this part of his statement sensitive.

"um, she just went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs"

Note, he is yet to use her name.

The word "Just" is often used to compare, minimise (downwards) and time, "i just received a call ten minutes ago. We know it is not about time as he is talking after the event. So why in this part of his statement does he minimise. Something more went on than going up and downstairs.

"um, she just went upstairs, um, and then came downstairs"

"and then"

Note here we have a skip in time (temporal lacunai) between going up and coming downstairs. What occurred while she was upstairs "and then" came down?"

"because that was the last thing she said to me, um, I’m gonna to go and clear my head, um, can’t do it here."

Note he gives us the reason why ("because") why she "might" have "just walked down the street" When some has a need to explain (because, to...) without being asked it is colour coded blue as the highest form of sensitivity (SCAN) along with the word "left". He is anticipating being asked why she "might have just walked down the street"

"just to clear her head because that was the last thing she said to me, um, I’m gonna to go and clear my head, um, can’t do it here."

Note the repetition to clear here head making it sensitive. He introduces her "head" will she have injuries to her head "if" she is found dead?

"that was the last thing she said to me"

Here he wants the communication to stop.

The time between going "upstairs" and "coming down" is where i would focus my attention first.

The provicative writer and commentator has been embroiled in controversy for several weeks. Most recently, videos surfaced in which Yiannopoulos appears to condone sexual relationships between adults and minors. But Tuesday, he issued a statement saying that isn't true.

"I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim," he said. "My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, 'advocacy.' I am horrified by that impression."

Simon & Schuster announced that it has canceled publication of his upcoming book, "Dangerous."

The The American Conservative Union disinvited Yiannopoulos from this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. ACU chairman Matt Schlapp said that "due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation of Milo Yiannopoulos to speak."

"The remarks I made on podcasts and interviews more than a year ago were about my personal life experiences," Yiannopoulos said. "I will not apologize for dealing with my life experiences in the best way that I can, which is humor. No one can tell me or anyone else who has lived through sexual abuse how to deal with those emotions."

STATEMENT DELIVERED AT PRESS CONFERENCE 2/21/07I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was. I still don’t view myself as a victim. But I am one.Looking back, I can see the effects it had on me. In the years after what happened, I fell into alcohol and nihilistic partying that lasted well into my late 20s.

I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was. I still don’t view myself as a victim. But I am one.Looking back, I can see the effects it had on me. In the years after what happened, I fell into alcohol and nihilistic partying that lasted well into my late 20s.A few years ago I realised it was time to do something good with my life. I started focusing on work. But the black comedy, gallows humor and love of shock value I developed in my 20s did not go away.I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported. Nonetheless I do say some things on the tapes that I do not mean and which do not reflect my views.My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I am horrified by that impression.I would like to restate my disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics.And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. I was also the first journalist in the UK to ask after Jimmy Savile’s death whether the real story of his rampant child abuse would ever be told. My professional record is very clear.But I do understand that the videos you have seen, even though some of them were deceptively edited, paint a different picture. I am partly to blame.I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is "about right." I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it.I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly. To repeat: I do not support pedophilia. It is a disgusting crime of which I have personally been a victim.The remarks I made on podcasts and interviews more than a year ago were about my personal life experiences. I will not apologize for dealing with my life experiences in the best way that I can, which is humor. No one can tell me or anyone else who has lived through sexual abuse how to deal with those emotions.

But I am sorry to other abuse victims if my own personal way of dealing with what happened to me has hurt you.I will never stop making jokes about taboo subjects. Go into any drag bar or gay club and you will see performers cracking jokes about clerical sexual abuse. I am not afforded that same freedom, because the media chooses to selectively define me as a political figure in some circumstances, and a comedian in others.But I said some things on those internet live streams that were simply wrong.My employer Breitbart News has stood by me when others caved. They have allowed me to carry conservative and libertarian ideas to communities that would otherwise never have heard them. They have been a significant factor in my success. I’m grateful for that freedom and for the friendships I forged there.I would be wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting, which is why today I am resigning from Breitbart, effective immediately. This decision is mine alone.When your friends have done right by you, you do right by them. For me, now, that means stepping aside so my colleagues at Breitbart can get back to the great work they do.My book, Dangerous, has received interest from publishers after my previous publisher Simon and Schuster informed me they no longer wished to release it. The book will come out this year as planned. I will be donating 10 per cent of my royalties to child sex abuse charities.I haven’t ever apologized before. Name-calling doesn’t bother me. But to be a victim of child abuse and for the media to call me an apologist for child abuse is absurd.I regret the things I said. I don't think I've been as sorry about anything in my whole life. This isn't how I wanted my parents to find out about this.

But let's be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don't care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I've never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don't care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail.I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks.I started my career as a technology reporter who wrote about politics but I have since become something else. I am a performer with millions of fans in America and beyond. I’m grateful for the tens of thousands of messages of support I’ve received and I look forward to making you all laugh, cry and think for many decades to come.My full focus is now going to be on entertaining and educating everyone, left, right and otherwise. If you want to brand or stereotype me, good luck with that.Don’t think for a moment that this will stop me being as offensive, provocative and outrageously funny as I want on any subject I want. America has a colossal free speech problem. The land of the First Amendment has some of the most oppressive social restrictions on free expression anywhere in the western world. I’m proud to be a warrior for free speech and creative expression.I want everyone in America, the greatest country in the history of human civilisation, to be able to be, do, read and say anything. I will never stop fighting for your right to do that.Thank you. I will take 5 questions

Lynda, I am only vaguely aware of who Milos is, and without knowing what Milos said, my thoughts would be of little value. The left is filled with perverts, so I would need to know what Milos said that offended the left or the media. Again, I dont know what Milos said, however his statement you have posted above seems truthful. Some gay men use very creepy terms and expressions that I also find disgusting, but that is their norm, are liberals suddenly offended by this? Again, I dont know exactly what he said.

OK, I googled for more info, and I think I now know what Milos said....yeah, that is disgusting...he should have been fired. Unfortunately, that is probably the way many (not all) gays think. I dont know what he said about clergy/priests but people have every reason to be wary of them. Liberals are perverted also and corrupt children by teaching them in school that they can choose their gender, etc.

I just watched a random youtube video of Milos speaking (I have not seen him speak before), and I do get a somewhat creepy vibe off him...he also seems very disrespectful and aggressive towards women; I get a gross, icky vibe off him...something is weird...also all of his flamboyant hand gestures (not because they are flamboyant, but because they seem out of sync with his speech patterns) make him seem confused and unstable and untrustworthy in my opinion. Something is off with him...he seems very hateful to women, potentially violent, maybe towards males also. I dont like him.

'...she was given a security check by TSA and did not cry for others.'

I found that funny.

--

Once, my boots set off the alarm - I should have taken them off, but the security staff were not being so strict that day and the queues were long. I had to take them off and put them through the machine anyway, so that didn't save anyone any time. I can't remember if that was the same time and reason I was patted down and swabbed, or if that was another time and random, only that I did not take it personally, and that it took probably less than a minute.

Once I left a half-empty bottle of water in my backpack, which the machine detected - I had forgotten it was in there. I was allowed to bin it and let through with a stern, 'No liquids!', which was better than the delay promised on the notices for liquid in hand luggage.

Now I take off my boots and triple check my hand luggage, as it's embarrassing to set off an alarm.

I think a two hour delay by customs would be stressful because I'd worry about possibly missing my flight - but I'd also be likely to know why I was being delayed, as I would ask, and would no doubt be given an explanation. I don't believe she didn't know why she was delayed, as surely she would have asked, and even if the reason was that it was random, that would still be a given reason.

THE behaviour of some of Karen Ristevski’s closest family members has raised eyebrows from the moment she went missing in June last year to the discovery of her badly decomposed body in Victorian bushland on Monday.From her brother-in-law Vasko to her stepson Anthony, Ms Ristevski’s relatives have placed themselves under public scrutiny with their bizarre, attention-seeking antics.Ms Ristevski’s body was found by a passer-by wedged between two logs off a dirt track near Loch Rd at Mount Macedon about 12.30pm on Monday.On Tuesday it was revealed that a witness told police he saw a man with a shovel at the spot where Ms Ristevski’s remains were found.The witness had quipped: “What did you do to the body?” but was met with an expressionless face from the man, whose description has not been released.The date of this alleged encounter has not been publicly disclosed but at least one local resident, Ian Flannery, has told reporters he noticed a rancid smell in the area around August last year.Ms Ristevski’s family members have always denied any involvement in her disappearance.In December, police searched properties at Toolern Vale, Gisborne and Diggers Rest — just 30km from Mount Macedon — after tracking pings from both Ms Ristevski and husband Borce’s mobile phones on the day she vanished.Ms Ristevski, 47, was last seen at her $1.1 million property on Oakley Rd in Avondale Heights on June 29 last year, according to her husband.Police have not named Mr Ristevski as a suspect in his wife’s murder but his lawyer today conceded he was the prime suspect in her murder.Mr Ristevski reportedly told family members he believed his wife may have been snatched by a stranger.Mr Ristevski also dismissed claims by his estranged son Anthony Rickard, a confessed ice user, that he had overheard Mrs Ristevski saying she would leave Borce when their daughter Sarah turned 21.Mr Rickard, approached Channel 9’s A Current Affair in August in an attempt to sell an unsubstantiated story. He had also made the claim on social media in posts that were later removed.Mr Ristevski told detectives Karen went out to “cool off” about 10am following an argument about money but police have been unable to find CCTV footage or confirmation from independent witnesses that she left the property alive.It later emerged that there were several inconsistencies in the version of events he told detectives under questioning, including allegedly “forgetting” that he had taken his wife’s car for a spin after she walked out to “assess a faulty fuel gauge”.He allegedly amended his story after records tracked his mobile phone and also his wife’s mobile phone to the Calder Highway on the day she vanished.Mr Ristevski’s son from a previous relationship, Anthony Rickard, and his nephew Chris Ristevski have both tried to sell their stories.Mr Rickard, a 30-something, self-confessed ice user who moved in with his father and stepmother as a troubled teen, has made wild claims on Facebook he had an affair with Ms Ristevski.

He has told both The Australian and the Herald Sun that he feared the conflict arising from their relationship led to her disappearance but that he didn’t believe his father had done anything to hurt her.In a bizarre Facebook rant last year, he claimed his father turned a blind eye to his addiction and “allowed Karen to continue her fantasy of leaving u (sic) to run away with me”.Yet perhaps the oddest statements of all have come from Mrs Ristevski’s brother-in-law Vasko Ristevski.It was Vasko who raised the frankly bizarre suggestion (quickly discounted by the cops) that Karen had somehow secured herself a “fake passport” and “run away” overseas after tensions between Anthony, her husband and herself reached boiling point.“I don’t think she will come back. I reckon she’s gone for good,” he told the Herald Sun.Then Vasko’s son Chris went on A Current Affair to defend the family against Anthony’s sordid allegations, describing his cousin as a “toxic” human being who took advantage of his aunt and uncle after they took him in.“He’s used everyone around him, he’s used Karen and Borce,” Chris told the program. “(They) have both given him cars, which he’s totally destroyed. Money, accommodation and he’s just abused it.”

HER HUSBANDAs the husband, Borce Ristevski has always been the prime suspect in Karen’s murder.He told police that on the morning of her June 29 disappearance, he and Karen had an argument about money and that she went for a walk to “cool off” but never returned.“That was the last thing she said to me; ‘I’m going to go and clear my head’,” Mr Ristevski told reporters when the family appealed for information at a July 13 press conference.“She has always walked back in the door after calming down.”Mr Ristevski, his daughter with Karen, Sarah Ristevski, and Karen’s aunt Patricia Gray walked out of that presser minutes later after a Channel Seven reporter asked him point blank if he had killed his wife.

He allegedly stopped co-operating with police following an July 8 interview with detectives in which he denied having anything to do with her disappearance.It has since emerged that there are several inconsistencies in the timeline Mr Ristevski allegedly conveyed to police regarding his movements on the day of her disappearance.According to the Herald Sun, he initially failed to mention that he had taken his wife’s 2004 Mercedes Benz for a drive down the Calder Highway in order to “assess a faulty fuel gauge”.He later told police that the problem had fixed itself after the car hit a bump in the road and that he subsequently turned around and went home.It later emerged that “pings” from Mr and Ms Ristevski’s respective mobile phones had been detected by transmitter towers along Melbourne’s Calder Highway on June 29, the day of her disappearance.The Australian reported that Mr Ristevski told police he went for a drive just half an hour after his wife walked out of the house and was on the road from 10.30am until about midday.The paper also claimed Mr Ristevski received a request to work from ride-sharing company Uber but was unable to confirm whether he accepted the job.His claim that he saw Ms Ristevski leave the house cannot be corroborated by any other witnesses and he has since stated that security cameras at the family property stopped working months before his wife went missing.Mr Ristevski’s lawyer Katarina Ljubicic said her client had not been asked to make any further statements to police beyond the two he had already completed.“He’s not been asked to make another statement and he’s fully co-operated with police,” Ms Ljubicic told The Australian.

Ms Ristevski’s brother-in-law Vasko offered up the most bizarre theories after she vanished.He glibly told reporters that tensions between Borce, Anthony and Karen, and her embarrassment over her alleged inappropriate relationship with her stepson had prompted her to stage her own disappearance.He also repeated Anthony’s claims that the marriage was in trouble and that she planned to leave Borce once their daughter Sarah turned 21.“I reckon she’s run away, ” He told the Herald Sun just weeks after Ms Ristevski vanished.“That’s my feeling, what with all the rumours going on about Anthony (Rickard).“She’s been going overseas to America and Hong Kong each month for the past 10 years on business, and I’m told it’s fairly easy to get a false passport.“I did put the rumours (about Mr Rickard) to Borce, but he said Karen’s not here to ­answer them. I don’t think she will come back, I reckon she’s gone for good.”

HER STEPSON

Anthony Rickard, Borce Ristevski’s son from a previous marriage, claimed early on that he and his stepmother developed an inappropriate relationship after the couple took him in as a troubled teen a decade ago.Mr Rickard’s relationship with the rest of the family had long been a source of tension. The self-confessed ice addict had previously posted violent messages on social media and once offered to sell the family’s story to A Current Affair.

The television show said it offered him $50,000 in a “fake” deal but claimed he demanded $200,000. Mr Rickard denied asking for money, claiming producers offered him the cash.Last year, he made wild claims on Facebook that he and Ms Ristevski had an affair and that she planned to run away with him after her daughter Sarah turned 21.In a rambling post which appeared to be addressed to his father, Mr Rickard called his father a “coward” and accused him of turning a blind eye to his drug-taking which “allowed Karen to continue her fantasy of leaving u (sic) to run away with me”.Mr Rickard, who lives in Diggers Rest in Melbourne’s northwest, posted dozens of cryptic, sometimes violent comments and memes on his Facebook page after his stepmother went missing.

One said “so many idiots, so few bullets” while another revealed he was experiencing problems but they were “nothing violence won’t fix”.His latest, posted on Tuesday night, a day after Ms Ristevski’s body was found, said: “What’s done is done, and what’s gone is gone. One of the life’s most valuable lessons is learning how to let go and move on.”Mr Rickard has publicly stated that he did not kill Ms Ristevski and has also said he does not believe his farther would have hurt her.

HER DAUGHTER

Sarah Ristevski, 21, reportedly severed contact with detectives last year in protest of her father’s alleged treatment by investigators as the prime suspect in her mother’s murder.She clung to him and sobbed as the pair stormed out of a July 13 press conference with Ms Ristevski’s sister Patricia Gray after a Channel Seven reporter asked Mr Ristevski if he “had killed his wife”.Sarah, who worked at Bella Bleu, Ms Ristevski’s struggling Broadmeadows clothing boutique, has also been dogged by rumours that she and her mother were not getting on in the weeks before she went missing. News.com.au is not suggesting Sarah has anything to do with her mother’s disappearance.Bella Bleu closed in February last year and caveats had been placed on the Ristevski’s Avondale Height’s home by lenders after Mr Ristevski resorted to borrowing cash from a notorious Melbourne loan shark on at least two occasions.

OT "He was grabbing at me and trying to grope me and eventually during the scuffle I got hit in the mouth. I don't know if I got punched. I don't know if I got hit with an object," said Hill. "I believe he would have raped me if Michael didn't come.

Re: Hey Jude- I had to laugh at your recounting of being pulled out of line at the airport. It reminded me of a visit to Washington DC with friends. We were touring inside the Capitol Building and had been standing in line for over an hour. About halfway to the Senate Floor Gallery doors, we saw the Security Checkpoint signs. Jokingly, we all began checking our pockets to see what we had. I always carry my car keys in my right pants pocket, so I pulled them out to "show" my friends and put them back. I was horrified when a Security Guard shouted, "YOU! Step over here!"(and all those people looking at me like I had a gun or something). Turns out, I had a whistle on my key chain to blow or help in an Emergency-a big no-no. I "could use it disrupt a Congressional session" said the less-than-pleased Security Guard sternly. Who does that? Here we were worried about people in our line who might be packing guns, knives or other weapons! Never carry a whistle on Capitol Hill.